On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:30:45PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Mon, 16.02.2004 at 12:23:16 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:52:23AM +0100, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: > > > You seem to have missed my point, I did not said that our default install > > > was less "secure" than OpenBSD's but more bloated. In fact, you have not > > Just a quick question, would you judge chargen as a potential DOS > avenue, and/or a security risk for that reason? No, chargen cannot form part of a DoS attack. Nothing which is equivalent to or less effective than a UDP flood forms a meaningful part of a DoS attack. > > > demonstrated that this is not the case. > > Because it wasn't the subject under discussion. You need to look up > > "bloat" in a dictionary though, it doesn't mean "big". > > Bloat means to carry a lot of useless stuff along. Wrong, completely and utterly. You also need to look up "bloat" in a dictionary. > And yes, the whole stack and heap protection stuff in OpenBSD should > make it safer in general, no matter how much you want to claim that > that's esotheric. Anti-elephant powder. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature